The 13-year-old Croteau was found beaten to death on the banks of the Chicopee River in 1972, and his parents, Carl and Bernice Croteau, of Springfield, this week called for a new, independent investigation into their son's killing.

Lavigne, the family's parish priest, emerged as a suspect but was never charged. He remains inexorably linked to the unsolved murder despite several investigative developments his lawyers argue should exonerate him.

"It's not Richard Lavigne, and people have to accept that," Boston lawyer Patricia Garin said during an interview today, one day after her firm released a strongly worded news release titled: "Richard Lavigne did not murder Daniel Croteau."

The statement highlighted six evidentiary points including a polygraph Lavigne passed in 1972, an alibi and forensic evidence his lawyers argue establish his innocence.

However, Greenfield lawyer John J. Stobierski argued Lavigne's lawyers are simply coloring the evidence. "Any good defense attorney wants to put the best lean on the case they can, and that's what happened here," Stobierski said.

Lavigne pleaded guilty to two counts of child molestation in the early 1990s and received 10 years of probation. Dozens of former parishioners have sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, with claims that Lavigne molested them when they were young boys.

The diocese settled one round of cases in 2004 for $7.7 million; more are pending. Lavigne has never faced subsequent criminal prosecutions as the claims were too old to prosecute. He was defrocked in 2004.

Questions old and new about Lavigne's involvement continue to swirl as the civil cases - and underlying arguments among lawyers about opening case files - endure.

Stobierski responded in detail to six points in the defense statement:

"First, Richard Lavigne took a polygraph test in 1972 and passed it."

Stobierski argued that the test - inadmissible in Massachusetts courts - was Lavigne's second. An initial test was inconclusive and showed "erratic and inconsistent responses," according to a test report previously made public in the case.

"Second, the tire marks left at the scene of the crime, which indicate that a car sped away from his body, in freshly rained on soil, did not match the tires on Richard Lavigne's car or his family's car."

Stobierski said several of his clients who said they were molested by Lavigne recalled that he would pick them up in a variety of cars. Garin said she has never seen references to multiple cars in any of the reports linked to the case.

"Third, the blood found at the crime scene that was not Danny Croteau's blood was, according to police, almost certainly the murderer's blood," the defense wrote, and added that a 1993 DNA test comparing items at the scene with a sample of Lavigne's blood did not implicate Lavigne. "The blood was DNA tested and it was not Richard Lavigne's blood."

Stobierski responded that one test put Lavigne's blood in the realm of that found at the scene, and that one test was inconclusive. Garin disputes this, and argued that the test was only inconclusive in theory.

"The only way, according to the (Hampden County district attorney's) office, they could be inconclusive is if there were two contributors, neither of them Danny, to this spot of blood and it was mixed together," Garin said.

"Fourth, the police corroborated Richard Lavigne's alibi. He was with his family the entire evening of the murder."

Stobierski said he could not address this, because some investigative files remain under seal and he has never seen a public vetting of Lavigne's alibi for the night of April 15, 1972. Garin said in a follow-up interview that Lavigne's mother, his now deceased father and a third family member affirmed Lavigne's alibi.

The latest resurgence of the Croteau case was prompted by the effort of insurance companies - fighting against covering the multimillion-dollar claims paid by the diocese - to open investigative files that may show how the diocese handled priests suspected of pedophilia.

District Attorney William M. Bennett - who did not hold that office at the time of the murder - and state police investigators sought to have the files remain closed. However, a Hampden Superior Court judge largely denied their motion. They also unsuccessfully fought a similar petition by The Republican in 2003 to open thousands of pages of records related to the case.

Stobierski and Croteau's parents held a press conference on Monday, making a public appeal for "justice" in the case. Stobierski invited outside agencies such as the Governor's and U.S. Attorney's offices to get involved. Representatives for those offices had no comment yesterday, saying they had yet to receive formal requests from the family.

Bennett has not responded to recent calls for comment on the case. However, he fought for Lavigne to provide the blood sample for the DNA tests in 1993. His office has said the investigation is ongoing, though Agostini disputed this in his ruling.

As for the final points in the defense statement, the fifth reads, in part:

"Much of the information said to implicate Lavigne is obviously false," including the assertion that an anonymous caller rang the Croteau's house on the night of Daniel's murder and made an incriminating statement, and Croteau's brother identified the caller as Lavigne. "The truth of the matter, however, is that on April 17, 1972, Carl Croteau was interviewed by Chicopee police. He told police .$?.$?. he had never heard the voice before."

Further, Garin dismissed one alleged witness' contention that she had seen the murder, arguing she had "visions" as part of a post-hypnotic dream.

Stobierski countered that the woman, an alleged abuse victim of Lavigne and also a client of his, had indeed undergone hypnotherapy. "That makes her testimony troublesome for admissibility in court," Stobierski said, but pointed to other witnesses who put Lavigne at or near the scene of Croteau's murder, according to Agostini's ruling.

And to the last point:

"Sixth, there were a very large number of suspects identified in the case (many noted in the search warrant affidavit) who were never investigated."

Stobierski said that affidavit has never been made public, and that the Croteaus have lost faith in the district attorney's office and in the court system in general. "We don't know who the other suspects are, and in the Croteaus' mind, there's only one suspect," he said.

In response to Stobierski's comments, Garin said the Greenfield lawyer is exploiting the Croteau family's - and the public's - thirst to find a murderer.

"It's an unsolved crime, and there is a lawyer who continues to drive to keep it in the media and it doesn't belong there," she said.